Meeting: Delegated Decisions by the Executive Member for Community Services on Traffic Regulation Orders Date: 4 February 2016 Subject: Various Roads, Central Bedfordshire Consider Objections to Proposed Disabled Parking Spaces Report of: Summary: Paul Mason, Head of Highways This report seeks the approval of the Executive Member for Community Services for the implementation of disabled parking spaces in Various Roads in Central Bedfordshire Contact Officer: Public/Exempt: Wards Affected: Function of: Nick Chapman nick.chapman@amey.co.uk Public Biggleswade South, Caddington, Dunstable Watling, Dunstable Northfields, Dunstable Icknield, Dunstable Manshead, Flitwick, Linslade, Leighton Buzzard South, Parkside, Houghton Hall, Tithe Farm, Sandy, Eaton Bray and Stotfold Council CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Council Priorities: The proposal will improve parking facilities and improve mobility for disabled people at various locations. Financial: This work is being funded from the Council s budget for minor traffic and parking schemes and is expected to cost approximately 8,000. Legal: None from this report Risk Management: None from this report Staffing (including Trades Unions): None from this report Equalities/Human Rights: None from this report
Community Safety: None from this report Sustainability: None from this report RECOMMENDATION(S): That the proposal to introduce Disabled Persons Parking Spaces be implemented as published. Background and Information 1. The Council has received requests to provide parking spaces for disabled drivers at a number of locations in Central Bedfordshire. These requests are assessed against the Council agreed policy and criteria for disabled spaces. This includes an assessment of a number of factors, such as the availability and suitability of off-road parking and the difficulty that the disabled might experience in finding a convenient space if they have to park on road. The applicant must receive disability benefit at the higher mobility rate. All of the applications included in this report are considered to be compliant with the Council s criteria. In accordance with usual Council procedures, these proposals have been batch-published by newspaper circulation area in the interests of cost efficiency. 2. At Temple Way/Wren Close, Flitwick the Council has proposed to introduce No Waiting at any time to address obstructive parking. The opportunity was taken to publish the required notices at the same time as the disabled parking space was being published. 3. The complete list of proposed disabled spaces is as follows:- Back Street, Biggleswade Belam Way, Sandy Vaughan Road, Stotfold Borough Road, Dunstable Park Street, Dunstable Conquest Road, Houghton Regis Manor Park, Houghton Regis Sycamore Road, Houghton Regis Poplar Road, Kensworth Cantilupe Close, Eaton Bray Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick Temple Way/Wren Close (No waiting at any time) Springfield Road, Linslade Wing Road, Linslade Dudley Street, Leighton Buzzard
4. The proposals were formally advertised by public notice in October 2015. Consultations were carried out with the emergency services and other statutory bodies, relevant Town and Parish Councils and relevant Ward Members. Residents living immediately adjacent were individually consulted by letter. 5. A number of objections and other written representations have been received in relation to the proposals:- a) Back Street, Biggleswade b) Belam Way, Sandy c) Poplar Road, Kensworth d) Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick e) Temple Way/Wren Close (No waiting at any time) f) Springfield Road, Linslade 6. No objections were received in relation to the remaining spaces, so it is recommended that they be implemented as published. Representations and Responses 7. Copies of all correspondence are included in Appendix C. The main points of concern raised are summarised below:- a) Back Street, Biggleswade One representation. Biggleswade Town Council suggests that this should be put on hold until the High Street bridge works are complete as parking is suspended in Back Street. b) Belam Way, Sandy One objection. A nearby resident claims that she is also disabled and needs to park outside her home. She would like a disabled space herself. c) Poplar Road, Kensworth Five objections. Residents say that all homes in the area have off-road parking available, so the disabled bay is not needed. The disabled space will cause difficulties for emergency vehilces using the road and would obscure visibility for drivers using adjacent driveways. The applicant lives in Green Lane, not Poplar Close, has parking available or could park on Green Lane itself. The applicant parks a large vehicle at this location, which restricts visibility and turning space. The parking space would be alongsde a grassed area and parked cars affect use of that space, including for maintenance purposes. d) Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick One objection. The road is not wide enough to accommodate a disabled parking space and would cause problems for HGVs, for example a refuse truck. The space will obstruct his drieways and would devalue their property.
e) Temple Way/ Wren Close, Flitwick Two objections and three other representations. The objections are from a household that is located at the far end of Wren Close and is concerned that the proposal will force cars to park further into their road. This would obstruct the road and individual driveways. The other representiations generally support the proposal, but suggets that the restrictions need to extend further to address parkign issues on Temple Way. f) Springfield Road, Linslade Two objections and one other representation. The objections are based on the fact that parking is already very limited in the area and the provision of a disabled space will reduce the number of general spaces available even further. This is exacerbated by the size of the proposed disabled space which is longer that a normal car length. Springfield Road has residents permit parking, to it is unfair to charge for on-street parking and then remove some of the available space. Due to parking controls in adjacent streets it is not difficult for residents to find alternative parking within reasonable walking distance. It is suggested that the parking scheme be extended to improve the situation. 8. Central Bedfordshire Highways response to the points above are as follows:- a) Back Street, Biggleswade The installation of the parking space should be delayed until the bridge works are complete. The parking bay on this particular length of Back Street has been switched to the opposite side of the road to facilitate additional through traffic. b) Belam Way, Sandy The Council has received an application from the objector and this will be processed in the usual way. c) Poplar Close, Kensworth The applicant does live in Green Lane and has a garage, but is unable to get out of her car when parked in the garage. The applicant s home does not have direct vehicular access, so she is unable to park immediately outside. The closest road is the end of a cul-de-sac where parking is limited by the number and position of driveways. The proposed location is not directly outside any one else s homes and there is a footpath from there to the applicant s home. Parked cars at this location would not prevent vehilces, including emergency vehilces or lorries passing. It is acknowledged that a vehilce parked at this location would obscure a driver wishing to exit an adjacent driveway, but this is not an uncommon occurrence in residential streets. Poplar Close is a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, in which traffic flows are generally low.
d) Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick The road is sufficiently wide to enable all traffic, including larger vehilces, to pass. The disabled space can be located, so that it would not obstruct anyone wishing to enter or exit a nearby driveway. e) Temple Way/Wren Close, Flitwick The proposed restrictions only cover the immediate junction area. Consequently, very few parked cars are expected to be displaced and given the distance from the junction to the objectors home this is unlikely to present a significant issue. It is acknowledged that there are parking pressures in the area, much of which is associated with railway commuter parking. It is recommend that the current, rather modest restrictions, are implemented, but that parking on adjacent lengths of road is assessed at a suitable opportunity when other work of this type is being undertaken in Flitwick. f) Springfield Road, Linslade Given the location, the presence of the railway station, road characteristics and style of housing it is inevitable theat there will be significant on-street parking pressures. It is a fact that there is already insufficient parking spaces to satisfy demand and the provision of a disabled space will exacerbate the situation. It could be argued that the level of on-street parking means that it is even more important to provide a disabled parking sapce for someone with severe mobility problems. Longer term it may be necessary to consider new and/or review existing parking controls in area to improve matters for residents. However, this would involve significant work that is outside the cope of this project. 9. Bedfordshire Police has raised no objections to the proposals. Conclusion 10. If approved, the works are expected to take place within the current financial year or early in the new year. Appendices: Appendix A Drawings of Proposals Appendix B Public Notice of Proposals Appendix C Representations
Appendix A Back Street, Biggleswade Not to scale Belam Way, Sandy Proposed Parking for Disabled Badge Holders (6.6m long x 2.7m wide) Not to scale
Poplar Close, Kensworth Proposed Parking for Disabled Badge Holders (6.6m long x 2.7m wide) Not to scale. Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick
Temple Way/ Wreen Close, Flitwick Springfield Road, Linslade 50 Proposed Parking for Disabled Badge Holders (6.6m long x 2.7m wide) Not to scale.
Appendix B
Appendix C Back Street, Biggleswade The Biggleswade Town Council considered the above at a Town Council meeting and made the following resolution; In view of the fact that there may be works to the bridge until April 2016, and normal parking will be suspended during that time, it would be inappropriate to put this in place at the moment. CBC may therefore like to reconsider the timescales for implementing this request. Belam Way, Sandy Thank you for your letter dated 6th October regarding the request of a disabled bay between 15/17 Belam away. I strongly object to this request as I live at number xx myself I need my motorbility car outside my house. I had a heart transplant in December 23rd 2010. Was diagnosed with COPD this year in May. My walking ability is slow and suffer with breathlessness on exertion. I have applied for a bay now myself after a long hospital admission on the 15th September just gone after receiving treatment for a severe acute heart rejection. Due to go back on Wednesday this week for a biopsy and more treatment. I would appreciate you showing empathy towards my situation Please. I also have a 6 year old with ADHD. I am a blue badge holder myself. Poplar Close, Kensworth We refer to your letter of 6th October in connection with an application for a disabled parking space in Poplar Road, Kensworth. We are the owners of xx Green Lane, Kensworth and would draw your attention to the following:- 1. All properties on this estate have either a drive or a garage with their property. Some of the properties in Green Lane, like ours, have a garage in a block but there are no owners who do not have the ability to park either in their drive or garage, albeit it may be a one minute walk from the house to the garage. 2. Poplar Road is of average width and if there was to be a permanent disabled parking space allotted, this may cause issues with emergency access as often there is not enough space for cars to pass if someone has parked in the proposed space. 3. If you allowed this space to be positioned where you propose, it would dramatically cut the line of view from the adjoining properties when accessing their driveways on to the road. There have already been several near misses as a resident insists on parking their Land Rover Discovery half on the pavement and half on the road, thus causing issues for people reversing out of their driveways.
4. As far as we are aware, none of our neighbours have a blue badge in their car or are disabled enough to warrant a specific space over and above their own garage. We would therefore urge you to refuse the application on the above grounds and would be grateful if you could please keep us informed as to progress. I am completely against this proposal. The lady I believe has asked for this space lives in Green Lane, not Poplar Road, has a very large 4x4, and has recently moved into the house. She constantly parks in this place already, much to the annoyance of residents, living in Poplar Road. In eleven years I have lived here, everyone avoids parking on the road at this point,as it is a very narrow road, making it difficult for us to get on and off our drives, due, to the car as an obstruction, and I, along with other people down the road cannot see any cars driving up the road. Just this week, my wife has nearly crashed twice due to the ladies large vehicle parked there, obstructing view so as my wife pulls off our drive, she could not see the other car travelling up the road, and obviously the oncoming car cannot see us pulling off our drive either. We have to swing right over onto the opposite side of the road, and until we are out there cannot see what is coming, too late. All surrounding houses have vans for work, myself included, and it is very difficult to swing it on or off my drive with the vehicle parked there, must be even worse for the people living opposite. The space is at a green area, designated for children to play on. Many do play here, mine included, and anyone parked there is an obstruction for children riding their bicycles, and children trying to cross the road, on and off the green. Hiding them from being seen by car drivers and the children not being able to see what is coming. A councillor had a meeting on the green with residents a couple of years ago and it was agreed by him that this is a big purpose for this green area, a place for children to play. This lady has only been here for approx four weeks, she rented the property out previously, before she moved into it. Parking for Green Lane residents is allocated at the other end of Green Lane, much less busy, and a similar distance away, and all residents have their own garage, for parking, this lady included, in a block which backs onto their houses, access, via gates in their gardens. Much closer than parking out on the road. My mother used to live in the house next door, so I know this. There is no need for her to park in Poplar Road. This is not a viable place to have a parking bay. It is just to narrow, dangerous, obstructing views, and making it incredibly difficult for people who do live on Poplar Road, unlike the lady, to get on and off their own driveways in safety, the bay would cover most of the width of the road, crossing well over into the opposite side of the road. How would we get round it. Ridiculous. You claim to have received a request for a disabled parking bay. This request is fallacious, disingenuous and totally without merit. I object to this proposal on the following grounds: There is absolutely no history at all of any disabled person experiencing difficulties parking in Poplar Road. It denies the right of other residents to use the highway for their own traffic movements. (This part of the highway is used by myself and all my neighbours, 24 hours a day, for the purposes of clearing vehicles from our drives). This part of the highway is used by CBDC when emptying the dog waste bin, the grass cutting contractor, when servicing the open space that is Green Lane and numerous delivery vehicles 24 hours a day.
The carriageway is only 5.49 m wide at this site. A further restriction of 2.7 m would impede access to service vehicles, e.g. Fire engines and waste disposal lorries. It would also seriously inconvenience my neighbours caravan outfits. Any vehicle parked at this site prevents the use of two inspection covers. A cursory examination of the map will prove that a site in Maple Way will be nearer to any resident of Green Lane. I enclose pictures, taken this morning, of the site, indicating the availability of parking opportunities, also a shot of a neighbour, using the carriageway at this point, to allow her husband to extract his car from their drive and depart to work. Thank you for the letter of consultation regarding a request for a disabled parking bay to be installed on Poplar Road in Kensworth. I would like to register my objection on the following grounds: 1. The proposed disabled bay is planned at the end of the green which is frequently used by the children
in the street as a recreational area. The parking bay would obstruct the visibility of children wanting to cross the road on either side of the vehicle and therefore would pose a danger to children living in the neighbourhood. 2. The entry into Poplar road from Common road is already partially blocked with parked vehicles to the right of the road on entry- this causes a danger in having to use the on coming lane to exit the road. Following the road towards the proposed parking area there are several commercial vehicles parked on either side of the road (vans and lorries) and causing congestion in an already narrow street. Where the parking bay is proposed there is a commercial van parked just opposite the road and will cause a major pinch point and danger (as per point 1) to pedestrians and especially children. 3. The person proposing the space does not live on this road but on Green Lane. There is a cul-de-sac at the end of the lane where there is less traffic and issues outlined above would be mitigated entirely. The distance from the opposite end of Green Lane is similar to where the proposed parking bay is. Furthermore there is also a back gate access from the parking and garage blocks at the rear of the property which could be used equally with no disturbance to traffic. Thank you for considering my points Upon receipt of your correspondence regarding the request for a disabled parking space on Poplar Road ( Kensworth ) I wish to make a couple of comments / concerns. 1) As the only route into Poplar rd, Elmside and Green lane it can be fairly busy with through traffic so by putting a designated parking space along this road may present safety concerns for the disabled user to get in and out of their vehicle safely. Would the car park in the cul de sac on Green Lane would present a safer option? 2) We already have numerous vehicles parking on and around the roadside where you wish to allocate the space. I am concerned this will only push the current parked cars further along the road causing access problems. As I write this we have Poplar Road partially blocked with double parking by residents who are choosing to park on the roadside instead of their driveways. One of whom has a drive suitable for 3 cars empty and a van parked on the road and the other who has a drive suitable for 4 vehicles (who has two cars on it), plus a double garage and always has a van on the road / pavement. We have also witnessed a neighbour who does not want anyone parked on the road outside their house, parking one of two vehicles (also a driveway for 3-4 cars and a double garage) on the road just to make a point. With all this surrounding our house we already find it difficult to access our own drive and fear the proposed location of the designated space will make this even more challenging for us and other neighbours. I am in support of the resident requesting a disabled space, but feel the inconsiderate actions of others may cause problems with this and parking needs to be addressed to enable this proposal to work. Sheepfold Hill, Flitwick I would like to object to the proposed disabled parking space to the front of 21/23 Sheepfold Hill. The road is not wide enough to support a disabled bay, and excavating the sloping verge will present a hazard to pedestrians on the pavement. It would also prove to be an outstanding impediment to any HGV that would want to negotiate the road, like the Bin Lorry or any other truck based delivery service, as the current parking convention leaves that side of the road clear.
It will obstruct access from my current drive or any future widened drive. I don't want a disabled bay outside of my house either, should I ever want to remove my hedge and drop the curb, to provide more parking on my property. It would also devalue my property for the reason outlined above. xx Sheepfold Hill is a Housing association property, if the resident requires a vehicle that close, why don't they move to a property with a drive, being 'disabled' would surely make it a high priority. Finally, I believe this to be a cynical attempt to acquire rights to road space, as the only resident on the electoral role, hence old enough to drive, at xx Sheepfold Hill is able enough to do a paper round, very early on a Sunday morning. Temple Way/Wren Close, Flitwick I am contacting you in reference to a letter we received on the 10 th of October detailing a disabled parking bay and also a no waiting at any time on Temple way and Wren close. I would like to give my opinion on the no waiting in Temple Way/Wren Close. I am a resident in Wren close and I have no problem with the restrictions, I think some residents might do. My issue is to where the restrictions will go to on Temple Way. In the letter it talks about the boundary between Nos. 2 and 3 of Wren Close, could I please request it goes further than that, up to where it would be opposite the entrance to Lark Way, so more like the boundary line between Nos. 5 and 6 Wren Close. Recently there have been many many cars parked along Temple way here, right up to the entrance to Wren Close, this makes it impossible to see if there are any cars coming from that direction, and you just take a risk and go. So many cars speed along this part of Temple way it s extremely dangerous. I m 99% sure that it s commuters parking there as there isn t so much of a problem at the weekends. Can you please adjust where the restriction will begin? I refer to your letter & attachments of the 6th October in respect of the above. I fully support the TRO to address indiscriminate (commuter) parking at the junction of Temple Way & Wren Close, Flitwick. In addition to the issue of a satisfactory "visibility splay" at the junction in safety interests, there is also the issue of speeding along Temple Way (which has a 30 mph speed limit). Might I therefore suggest that the proposed "no waiting restriction at any time" on Temple Way's east side from a point in line with the boundary of nos. 2 & 3 Wren Close reflects the braking distance required at 30 mph for vehicles to stop clear (i.e. short of) the junction with Wren Close when travelling in that direction. Given that Temple Way has a "blind summit" between Falcon Crescent/Lark Way & Wren Close it is vital that vehicles on Temple Way have sufficient visibility & braking distance to ensure satisfactory safety to vehicles turning in and out of Wren Close, given the parking along Temple Way. A further comment. Speed humps were recently installed at the junctions of Dunstable Road/Temple Way; Manor Way/Steppingley Road; and Windmill Road/Ampthill Road in Flitwick. However, nothing was done at the junction of Temple Way/Manor Way. If a speed hump/table had been installed at that junction
it would have done much to alleviate the speeding along Temple Way, particularly given Flitwick Lower School's location on Temple Way (MK45 1LU). Other similar school's in Central Beds now have 20 mph limits past them (Husborne Crawley Lower School; Houghton Conquest Lower School, etc.). Thanking you for your kind attention. I strongly object to the above proposal as this will only serve to encourage drivers to go further into Wren Close to park, making it even more difficult for me to get my vehicle on and off my drive at 9 Wren Close. It is only moving the problem to others, not solving it. Already I have to undertake an obstacle course to park my car on my drive because of vehicles parking on the road near my house which restrict the amount of room required to manoeuvre on to my drive. Also, when my neighbour's car is on his drive (which is most of the time) it restricts movement even further, coupled with the fact that the grassed area to the front and right of my house blocks almost half of my driveway entrance, necessitating me having to mount the kerb to get on to the drive, which, repeatedly, will knock out the vehicle s steering geometry. A PDF is attached to illustrate this. This will only make parking in Wren Close even more of a massive problem than it already is and appears not to have been thoroughly thought out. My I suggest you visit me so I can clearly demonstrate the problem I have to be able to park my car on my drive? Although I fully support these proposals I, along with Cllr Gomm & Cllr Chapman, would also like to see the yellow line on Temple Way extending back as far as the nearby bus-stop. The attached photograph clearly shows why this is a sensible step to incorporate into this scheme. You will plainly see that that there is a blind brow of the hill with parked cars all the way along between the bus-stop and Wren Close which gives rise to serious concerns from residents regarding road safety, especially when trying to cross the road (particularly as a parent taking children to nearby Flitwick Lower School). There are many anecdotal reports of near-misses at this point. Please seriously consider this extra yardage while this scheme is still in the consultation stage. It is an easy fix at this time, much harder with extra expense at a later date. Thank you & regards Andrew Cllr Andrew Turner Executive Member for Stronger Communities Central Bedfordshire Council Springfield Road, Linslade I am responding to a letter I have just received about installing a disabled parking bay in Springfield Road. I don't object to the bay itself, but I would suggest that at the same time as installing the bay, the Springfield Road parking permit zone is extended. At the moment, there is not enough parking on Springfield Road for all the residents, meaning many of us have to park on Leopold Road or Southcourt Road. Our permits do not extend to these areas. Obviously a disabled parking bay will exacerbate the situation further so I suggest adding Leopold Road and Southcourt Road to the permit zone, which would allow able bodied residents to park a short walk
from their homes without worrying about receiving a parking ticket, whilst residents with a blue badge can use the disabled bay nearer their home. I am writing to place a formal objection to the proposed introduction of a disabled parking bay in Springfield Road, Linslade, Leighton Buzzard (letter ref. GPB/60621/3.12). The grounds on which this objection is made are detailed below:- 1. The ratio of available parking spaces versus properties requiring parking on Springfield Road. The number of parking spaces available for residents of Springfield Road to park their cars is already vastly inadequate. This is of course a situation difficult to improve in an area where Victorian houses with no off street parking prevail. HOWEVER, to deliberately make the situation even worse would be a grave error of judgement and planning control. If you consider the half Springfield Road in question where the proposed disabled parking bay would be sited (from the top of Springfield Road to the junction with Leopold Road), there are 32 houses. Only 4 of these houses have off road parking. This leaves 28 houses with no other place to park their cars than on the road. There are currently 11 parking spaces on this half of Springfield Road. So if you have 28 houses, and you assume an average of 2 cars per household, that is 56 cars for only 11 spaces. This is without taking into account that even those who have off street parking may only have off street parking for 1 car, so their second car (if they have one) occupies one of the 11 spaces on the road. The proposal to place a 6.6m/7m (the letter mentioned both measurements so I don t know which is more accurate) disabled parking space would effectively remove 2 parking spaces as this is larger than a normal space and so would mean only 9 cars could park on this section for 28 houses! This is a reduction of almost 20%. Even if you take into account the whole length of Springfield Road, that would not improve the situation, as although there are an additional 10 residents parking spaces on the second half of the road (from Leopold Road to the junction with Soulbury Road) there are also an additional 9 or 10 houses who have no off street parking at all (plus other Victorian houses on the same side of the road who only have space for 1 car off road so their other car needs to be parked on the road) so those spaces are effectively cancelled out of the equation. 2. Whilst we have every sympathy for the needs of the disabled resident(s) who struggle to park close to their home, it must also be mentioned that the demographic of Springfield Road also consists of wide range of people, all with different needs and all suffering from the lack of parking. Current demographics include a large number of residents with small children ourselves included. Even with the current parking conditions, it is almost impossible to find a parking space on Springfield Road, which means having to walk with pushchairs, shopping and young children on what has become an increasingly dangerous road where people regularly speed/mount the pavements to pass each other. Our concern is for the safety and convenience of ALL residents of Springfield Road and taking away 20% of the parking is certainly only going to compromise the safety of residents still further by forcing them to park further and further away from their homes. 3. Residents Permits: We pay for residents permits each year to be able to park on Springfield Road. Given the current ratio s mentioned above (56 residents cars for only 11 spaces/or taking the whole road into consideration 76 residents cars for 21 spaces) we only have approx. a 20% chance of finding a space on Springfield Road as it is (and that s without taking into account visitor parking, people parking there to collect from the school etc). To remove another 20% of the available parking when the parking is so overstretched anyway seems absurd. It certainly raises 2 questions: - How could you continue to charge for residents permits if at the same time you are proposing to remove 20% of the available parking? Are you proposing a 20% reduction in the cost of a residents parking permit if this were to go ahead?
- Most importantly, where exactly are we meant to park our cars?? There are no other roads nearby where we can park Leopold and Rock Lane have parking restrictions during the day; Southcourt Avenue has single yellow lines or no parking due to people s driveways. I am honestly at a loss as to where we are meant to park and then to receive your letter with the proposal to remove a further 2 spaces is incredibly worrying and distressing. 4. Planning Permission: Our understanding is that when new houses are now built there must be room for one off street parking space for each bedroom. How on earth can you enforce such measures for new builds whilst at the same time make the parking situation for older properties who have no means of creating off street parking even more difficult? Surely if the planning permission s objective is to ensure adequate parking for any new houses, why would you contradict this approach by removing parking in other, already over stretched, areas? 5. IF the proposal goes ahead, will it be a disabled parking bay for only residents in Springfield Road with a Disabled Badge to park in, or could anyone with a Disabled Badge park in that space? We assume the former is correct, but if the latter is correct (in that to our knowledge Disabled badge holders have a right to park in any disabled parking bay without restrictions?) then this is even more ridiculous, as who is to stop someone who isn t even a resident in Springfield Road parking there and leaving the car there all day every day whilst they commute to London? Making the parking situation worse for residents and not even solving the problem you are trying to address. However, we am hoping our fears are unfounded here. 6. We are sure any proposal is looked at from a long term planning perspective, so perhaps we don t need to raise this, but in our mind the long term issue in Springfield Road will always be that there are more houses (and therefore more cars) than there are parking spaces. This issue will never go away, regardless of the demographics of the residents. Once a disabled bay is installed, you will never be able to remove it (the negative press alone would be damning) and so we certainly hope that this decision will not be taken lightly. Resident demographics & specific personal needs may change in the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years, but the need to at least maintain what little parking space there is available for all residents will remain the key priority. Needless to say, we object fiercely to this proposal, for many reason s but the most important being that where there are already vastly insufficient parking spaces to meet the needs of the local residents, no proposal, no matter how well meant, should be agreed that would reduce the available parking still further. We look forward to hearing from you on the points and questions raised above, and trust that you will consider these points very carefully before any decision is reached. I am writing in response to the letter I received from you on 6th of October proposing the installation of a disabled parking area on Springfield Rd in Linslade. I am afraid that I need to strongly oppose this due to the extremely difficult parking situation that already exists for all residents on that part of the road. As it stands, there are currently around 11 parking spaces for 28 houses. Almost all residents have at least one car so I am sure you will agree that parking is already vastly inadequate. Reducing this by a further two spaces is completely unacceptable. I would be interested in hearing any proposals you might have for increasing the number of resident parking bays in adjacent streets (Leopold Rd and Rock Lane, for example). I feel that a disabled parking space might be possible if you were able to create a significant number (e.g. 10) of additional resident spaces in those areas.